Case 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Document 43

Filed 01/18/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1474

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Case No. EDCV 11-01300 DMG Date January 18, 2012 Page 1 of 2

Title Erin K. Baldwin v. The State Bar of California, et al. Present: The Honorable

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NOT REPORTED Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present

VALENCIA VALLERY Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERSORDER STAYING PLAINTIFFS AMENDED REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE CORRECTED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TAKING DEFENDANT FRANZ E. MILLERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER SUBMISSION On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request [Doc. # 23] seeking, inter alia, leave to amend her Corrected Second Amended Complaint [Doc. # 20]. This Court, Hon. David O. Carter presiding, denied Plaintiffs request on December 2, 2011 [Doc. # 24]. On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended request for leave to amend [Doc. # 25], which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the denial of her original request for leave to amend. On December 12, 2011, Defendant Franz E. Miller filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint [Doc. # 26]. Plaintiff appealed the denial of her original request for leave to amend on December 19, 2011 [Doc. # 29]. On January 17, 2012, this case was administratively reassigned to the present judicial officer. Although it is clear that the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs appeal, see, e.g., Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from denial of leave to file fourth amended complaint), and a district court need not refrain from deciding a matter on appeal where it is clear that appellate jurisdiction is lacking, see United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2009) (Filing an appeal from an unappealable decision does not divest the district court of jurisdiction. (citing Estate of Conners v. OConnor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993))), the Court declines to proceed in this instance. Accordingly, Plaintiffs amended request for leave to amend is hereby STAYED until the Ninth Circuit resolves her appeal. Defendant Millers motion to dismiss, in contrast, may proceed regardless of whether the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs appeal because it relates only to Plaintiffs second amended complaint and not to her request for leave to amend. See Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d 684, 691 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a notice of appeal divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal
CV-90 CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

Case 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Document 43

Filed 01/18/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1475

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Case No. EDCV 11-01300 DMG Date January 18, 2012 Page 2 of 2

Title Erin K. Baldwin v. The State Bar of California, et al.

(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982))). Therefore, Defendants motion is hereby CONTINUED to February 17, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall file her opposition by no later than January 27, 2012. Defendant shall file his reply by February 3, 2012. All parties, including Plaintiff, are required to comply with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.10.3. All matters shall be called to the Courts attention by appropriate notice, stipulation, application, or motion filed and served in compliance with the Local Rules. Local Rule 83-2.11 prohibits parties from directly communicating with a judge in a pending matter unless opposing counsel is present. Plaintiff shall refrain from ex parte communications via phone and e-mail unless the answers to Plaintiffs procedural questions cannot be found in the Federal Rules, the Local Rules or Judge Gees Standing Order and Procedures and Schedulesall of which are available on the Central District of Californias website (www.cacd.uscourts.gov) and the United States Courts website (www.uscourts.gov).1 Any such ex parte communications shall be copied to opposing counsel. In addition, Plaintiff shall not submit documents for filing to the Courts deputy clerk as these documents will not be filed and are not part of the record. IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court cannot provide legal advice to any person, including pro se litigants, i.e., parties who are not represented by a lawyer. There is a Pro Se Clinic operating within the Riverside Courthouse that can provide information and assistance about many aspects of civil litigation in this Court. The Clinic is administered by the Public Service Law Corporation, a public interest law firm, and is staffed by lawyers. The clinic is open to members of the public on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The Pro Se Clinic is located in room 125 of the George E. Brown Federal Building at 3420 Twelfth Street in Riverside, California. In addition, some information for pro se litigants can be found on the Central Districts website. See Representing Yourself in Federal Courts, http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/ProSe.nsf. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk vv